What Fletcher should tell us, but probably won't

England's cricket coach Duncan Fletcher will publish a book this autumn, prompting speculation that he might be on his way out of the job, especially if Australia hand out their usual towsing in the Ashes series this summer.

England's cricket coach Duncan Fletcher will publish a book this autumn, prompting speculation that he might be on his way out of the job, especially if Australia hand out their usual towsing in the Ashes series this summer.

Fletcher has been known to say that offering strong opinions in a book is a coward?s way out, so should we therefore assume that he?ll keep his powder dry and remain consistent in his disinclination to lift the lid on what?s really gone on with England over the past five years of his tenure?

The publishers won?t be too chuffed if he does just that, especially in a crowded autumn market that will also feature books from Andrew Flintoff, Michael Vaughan and Graham Thorpe.

Nasser Hussain and Alec Stewart will be easy targets for Fletcher, now that they have retired ? Hussain for relinquishing the captaincy at such short notice, Stewart for opting out of the tour to India in 2001.

Stewart will be upset if Fletcher goes fully into the row they had during the Oval Test that year over Stewart?s winter plans. As his collaborator in Stewart?s autobiography, I can confirm that he opted to tone down the public disclosure of that angry exchange, out of respect for Fletcher and a desire not to wash too much dirty linen in public. His view will change if Fletcher gives his side of it in detail.

Among the items I would like to read in Fletcher?s book, but don?t expect to do so, are . . .

Who leaked to the media the England camp?s disquiet over Andrew Flintoff?s weight in the summer of 2000, leading to stories that Freddie was heavier than the boxer, Lennox Lewis?

Why did England undertake a tour of Australia in 2002 with Flintoff and Darren Gough manifestly unfit? Why did it take so long to get a double hernia operation organised for Flintoff, patching him up for two Tests against India, instead of making Australia his priority?

Is it true that when Fletcher landed the England job in 1999, he demanded ? and received ? a handsome amount extra for dealing with the English media? And does he agree that not only has he remained defective in that area, but he has been an embarrassment when dealing abruptly with foreign journalists on tours?

Why was he so supportive of James Foster on the India and New Zealand tour in 2001-02 when the young lad clearly wasn?t then up to the job and that Alec Stewart had to return to the side in the following summer? If Foster hadn?t broken his arm in May, 2002 would Stewart ever have played again for England?

Why has Chris Read been treated so harshly when Geraint Jones is inferior to him as a wicket-keeper and not demonstrably superior with the bat? Why does Jones continue to open the innings in one-day games when Ian Bell should be in there instead?

What are the reasons for England?s continuing mediocrity in one-day cricket? Fletcher maintains that you need to play between 30 and 50 times in one-day internationals before you master it. That hasn?t applied to Marcus Trescothick, Andrew Strauss and Kevin Pietersen, never mind many other tyros with other countries.

Why was Graeme Hick jettisoned too early from the one-day side in 2001? Why did Fletcher, who captained Hick with Zimbabwe in the early eighties, not only fail to get the best out of him with England, but also fail to communicate satisfactorily with Hick when he needed it?

Will Fletcher finally talk about the situation in Zimbabwe and explain why he never offered his thoughts during the players? anguished discussions about a World Cup boycott in 2003?

Has Duncan Fletcher ever admitted publicly that he got anything wrong as England coach? Why has he been so guarded and secretive?

I could go on all day. I just hope his collaborator, Steve James will ask the hard questions and get more out of him than the rest of us have done.

United's Best bet is Bruce

George Best may know more about pneumatic blondes than football coaching, but when he talks about Manchester United, he?s worth a listen. And he has some interesting thoughts on who should be the successor to Sir Alex Ferguson.

In an interview for Five Live, to be broadcast later this week, George nominates Steve Bruce to be United?s next manager. He believes that Bruce?s stature as a legend of Old Trafford would give him the self-confidence to take on such a massive challenge. The captain who lifted the first Premiership trophy in 1993 has always been royally received whenever he returns to United and the love affair is mutual.

Best thinks that Bruce?s practical experience of playing alongside icons like Eric Cantona and Bryan Robson equips him with the insight that?s so necessary to get the best out of players who need special handling. And the methods adopted by Bruce in dealing with the likes of Christophe Dugarry, Robbie Savage, Walter Pandiani and Jermaine Pennant mark him out as an excellent man-manager, in Best?s opinion.

He feels that a club with the status of Manchester United doesn?t need a tactical guru as manager ? more someone who relates to the best players and gets them properly motivated. The resurgence in Emile Heskey?s career this season is another feather in Bruce?s cap.

Ferguson doesn?t do a great deal of coaching at United?s training ground, preferring to delegate and keep a beady eye on any player not meeting his exacting standards. When you employ some of the best footballers in the country, an excellent coach is not an overwhelming priority. Getting inside players? heads is more relevant.

Steve Bruce still has to cut his teeth as a manager in European competition, a vital qualification for any wannabe successor to Ferguson, and that?s why Martin O?Neill would be the favourite if tomorrow Ferguson suddenly tired of the job.

But at the age of 44, Bruce isn?t yet at the age of Fergie when he came south in 1986. Time is on his side.

He does need to win something with Birmingham City first. But the financial support he gets from his board will ensure that Blues won?t tread water and he?s due some luck next season after a terrible run of injuries to his most creative players. Ideally Blues need to play more expansively and with increased flair if Bruce is to kick on.

But he knows what?s needed to make the grade as a Manchester United player. His forte was tremendous mental strength, allied to great leadership and indomitable competitiveness. Just like Ferguson.

He can?t go on forever and the act of succession will have to be handled more sensitively than in 1969, when Sir Matt Busby stood aside. George Best knows that better than most. Shares in Steve Bruce on the Old Trafford Stock Exchange are unlikely to dip.

McGarry did Wolves proud

Alex Ferguson has the reputation of a fearsome character when crossed, but he?s a pussycat compared to a man who died a few days ago. Bill McGarry was not only Wolves? best manager since Stan Cullis, but he made everyone jump when running the ship at Molineux 30 years ago.

Journalists who covered Wolves on a regular basis all had tales of copping a verbal coating from McGarry. I was no exception.

When I first started as a football reporter for Radio Birmingham, Ron Saunders ran Aston Villa with military precision and McGarry was at Wolves. Although Saunders was an exacting taskmaster, McGarry was far more fearsome.

Woe betide you if you turned up for an interview without doing the necessary research or an awareness that you could be challenged at every question if McGarry was in the mood. But he was great value when he was happy with the bait laid in front of him and plunged into a dissertation on the game?s current ills.

When Bill McGarry sighed and said ?Well . .?, you knew you were in for a treat. He deplored the financial greed of players, sloppy professionalism and anything he construed as cheating the customers and he would readily tell any player his fortune to his face.

McGarry?s fearless management style fashioned a highly attractive Wolves team, built around the speed and craft on the left wing of David Wagstaffe, the drive and shrewd passing in midfield of Mike Bailey and Kenny Hibbitt and the lethal striking partnership of Derek Dougan and John Richards.

Richards was his favourite player, as he was honest enough to admit once when his striker was going through a barren patch, but the intelligent and loyal Richards knew how much he owed to this hard taskmaster. Even the articulate and opinionated Dougan ? the quintessential dressing-room activist ? was kept in line by McGarry.

He deserved to win more than just the League Cup for Wolves. That came in 1974 and as his players celebrated joyously that day at Wembley, McGarry told the media that he would have resigned if Wolves had lost, because he felt that he was in danger of falling short too often.

Such was McGarry?s integrity that we all automatically believed him.

It was entirely consistent of him that he would resign two years later when the ageing Wolves side was relegated.

I last interviewed Bill McGarry in 1985, in my car outside his daughter?s house in Wolverhampton. He?d returned for an ill-advised, second spell as Wolves? manager, at a time when the club was heading towards oblivion. He only lasted 61 days and was totally disillusioned at the end.

That final interview was a vintage rant at the obstacles dogging any experienced manager. It was hard to quibble with one word. Bill McGarry deserved better than that awful finale.

Enoch Powell, another closely associated with Wolverhampton, once wrote that all political careers end in failure. With just a few exceptions, he could also have been referring to football management.

England moaners shamed by Wales

Wales? Grand Slam triumph is marvellous news for those who like to see the rugby ball kept live by clever, nimble players, rather than the English fondness for charging into tackles and relying on superior fitness.

This Welsh team have reintroduced fantasy into rugby union and it is little wonder that Gareth, JPR and the other heroes of yesteryear were so proud of them on Saturday.

England need an urgent reappraisal of style and tactics. They have a huge numerical advantage. There are 642,000 registered players in England, almost double that of South Africa, who have 331,000. France come next with 260,000, while Australia and New Zealand have 130,000 each, Wales 65,000 and Ireland just 45,000.

So Wales have overachieved marvellously as well as playing with panache and such spirit. In contrast, England have won the World Cup just once and usually come second to the Southern Hemisphere sides, who just can?t compete in depth of players.

There?s only one area where England are out in front ? moaning. About injuries, fixture congestion, refereeing decisions, you name it.

So it?s no surprise that there?s amusement among the rugby fraternity that England have again pulled up short and that there?s rejoicing in the valleys.